The Weekly Daf #352
Nazir 20 - 26
Issue #352 Parshat Lech Lecha
Week of 8 - 14 Cheshvan 5761 / 6 - 12 November 2000
By Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, Dean, Ohr Somayach Institutions
=====================================
INNOCENT ACTS AND GUILTY INTENTIONS
If a woman made a vow to be a nezirah and, unaware that her husband
cancelled her vow, drank wine or came into contact with the dead, she
is not punished by lashes for violating the Torah command prohibiting
a nazir from indulging in these activities. Even though her intention
was to violate Torah law, for she assumed she was a nezirah, the fact
is that her husband's cancellation rendered her actions free of sin.
There is no doubt, however, that her intention to do wrong is sinful.
This is why the Torah states (Bamidbar 30:13) "her husband cancelled
them (her vows) and Hashem will forgive her," to teach us that she
must atone for her actions in order to gain forgiveness. When Rabbi
Akiva reached this passage, he wept as he exclaimed: "If someone who
intended to eat swine flesh and ended up eating the kosher meat of a
lamb requires atonement and forgiveness, how much more so one who
intended to eat swine flesh and ended up doing so!"
Rabbi Yehuda goes one step further: Such a woman may not be liable
for lashes by Torah law, because she was in fact not a nezirah, but
she is liable for makkat mardut, the lashes given for violating
rabbinic law, because of her intention to sin. How many lashes are
given under this category?
Tosefot (Nazir 20b) cites the gemara (Mesechta Makkot 22a) that
although the Torah legislated a maximum of 39 lashes for the violation
of a Torah law, there is no such limit for makkat mardut, whose
literal translation is "lashes for rebellion." A Jew who refuses to
perform a positive mitzvah like eating matza or sitting in a succah is
given lashes until his rebellion is subdued and he consents to perform
the mitzvah.
But, points out Tosefot, this lack of a limit upon the number of
lashes may apply only to situations in which those blows are used as a
way of inducing him to perform a mitzvah against which he has shown
rebellion. In the case of the nezirah with evil intentions, she is
being punished for something she has already done. Since these lashes
are punishment of the past rather than coercion for the future,
concludes Tosefot, it may very well be that the number of these
rabbinically mandated lashes should not be more than those mandated by
the Torah for violation of Torah law.
* Nazir 23a
=====================================
A "SIN" FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE
A sin committed for the sake of Heaven is equal to a mitzvah performed
with an ulterior motive. This equation is made by Rabbi Nachman bar
Yitzchak on the basis of a passage (Shoftim 5:24) comparing Yael --
the woman who ended the Canaanite threat to Eretz Yisrael by slaying
their general -- to the Matriarchs. Although she utilized forbidden
relations to weaken him and accomplish her mission, this action
performed for Heaven's sake to save her people is granted credit equal
to that of the Matriarchs, whose mitzvah relationships with the
Patriarchs had an element of an ulterior motive of personal pleasure.
Why did a married Jewess like Yael not allow herself to be slain
rather than submit to the heathen Sisra, since adulterous relations
require martyrdom? Tosefot here answers this question in the same
manner that the gemara (Mesechta Sanhedrin 74b) explains why Esther
did not sacrifice her life rather than submit to Achashverosh: Since
the woman is the passive partner in such a forbidden relationship,
martyrdom is not expected of her.
In Sanhedrin Tosefot takes a radically different approach. From the
account of Yael's incident with Sisra in Sefer Shoftim, it appears
that she was not at all coerced into relations as was Esther. Sisra
was fleeing for his life after the destruction of his forces and
hardly had time for such things. On the contrary, Tosefot adds, he
only asked her to hide him from his pursuers, and it was she who took
the initiative of seducing him in order to weaken him.
Tosefot does not say, however, why it was permissible for Yael to do
what she did. The answer may be the same as the one given by Rabbi
Yechezkel Landau (Responsa of Noda Biyehuda, Vol. II Yoreh Deah 161)
for Esther taking the initiative in going to Achashverosh for
relations upon Mordechai's command. Her justification was the rescue
of the entire Jewish nation, and Yael's case can be seen as
comparable.
* Nazir 23b
==================================
If you like this e-mail please share it with a friend.
==================================
This Publication contains words of Torah.
Please treat it with due respect.
==================================
Do you know about ALL of Ohr Somayach's e-mail lists?
Ohrnet, Torah Weekly, Parsha Q&A,
Ask the Rabbi, The Weekly Daf, Seasons of the Moon,
OS-Special, Judaismo, Judaismo-p,
Light Lines, Ohrnews, Simcha, OS-Alum, Torah and Nature.
To subscribe, write to info@ohr.org.il
==================================
If you want to unsubscribe from this list, send an e-mail to:
unsubscribe-Yomi@lists.virtualjerusalem.com (no subject, no
body)
==================================
Dedication opportunities are available for The Weekly Daf.
Please contact us for details.
==================================
Written and Compiled by Rabbi Mendel Weinbach
General Editor: Rabbi Moshe Newman
==================================
Ohr Somayach International
22 Shimon Hatzadik Street, POB 18103
Jerusalem 91180, Israel
Tel: 972-2-581-0315 Fax: 972-2-581-2890
E-Mail: info@ohr.org.il Home Page: http://www.ohrnet.org
==================================
(C) 2000 Ohr Somayach International - All rights reserved.
This publication may be distributed to another
person intact without prior permission. We also
encourage you to include this material in other
publications, such as synagogue newsletters.
However, we ask that you contact us before hand for
permission, and then send us a sample issue.